[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] The Argument on Climate Science.

Sat Jul 23 13:45:21 PDT 2022

I believe people should be more precise when talking about “Settled Science”.  Was/is Newtonian physics overthrown by Einstein?  Not exactly.  Engineers can confidently design cars, ships, airplanes, satellite systems, etc. without recourse to the theory of relativity.  For the most part, people don’t need relativistic physics.  
So Newtonian physics is, for most practical purposes, “settled science”.  Scientists now know its an approximation to what we think of as the “correct” (relativistic) physics; but Einstein didn’t “invalidate” Newtonian mechanics.
Similarly, I can lean against a brick wall, confident that I won’t suddenly appear on the opposite side.  Quantum mechanics tells us there’s a nonzero probability that I could ‘tunnel’ (the quantum mechanics term) through the wall – but the probability of such an event is vanishingly small.  Classical physics can be safely applied to the situation.  In such situations classical physics is “settled science”.
To be sure, in our modern world, there are many situations where the newer “settled sciences” are necessary – GPS couldn’t work, for example, without accounting for the effect of gravity on timekeeping (general relativity) – but that’s because extreme time precision is required in GPS.  Semiconductor device sciences are generally a mixture of quantum and classical physics.
So in what sense global warming/climate change “settled science”?  In my view, it’s through accretion of a variety of scientific observations, including admittedly imperfect global temperature measurements, supplemented by the results of sophisticated computer modeling – most of which point in the same direction.  
The global system is too complicated – now, at least – for clear-cut conclusions of the kind by which Newtonian vs. Einsteinian mechanics can be judged.  Rather, it’s the accretion of observations and theory that lead lead scientists to judgment on the somewhat mushy basis of what lawyers call “preponderance of the evidence”.  By this standard, debates over the precision of one or another measurement are of secondary importance; the salient issue is how the imperfect pieces of evidence are adding up.

    – Mike Alexander

On Saturday, July 23, 2022, 2:51 PM, Stephen Quatrano <stefanoq at gmail.com> wrote:

Yes!  This is right on, Ted.
For sure our scientific institutions — scientific societies — consist of individual scientists, fallible human beings.  And the institutions themselves (along with their peer-reviewed processes) have succumbed to social, political and cultural bias and made serious, grievous errors in the past.  The history of science is FILLED with examples.  Nevertheless, what makes science different from other, similar human institutions, however, is that ultimately, scientific beliefs and models that support them have to stand up to reality and the constant pressure of new research.  No-one is more celebrated in science than the individual outlier who undermines conventional wisdom and overturns a field with original data and reason.  Although plenty of scientists have made terrible errors over the centuries, science as a whole and over time, centuries in some cases, is self correcting.
WRT Climate Change, what impresses me is the record of the debate going back decades.  Decades.  Take the long view and read the record.  It’s impressive.  And that’s what is meant by “settled science.”  It’s never really settled.  While it is unlikely, there is always a chance that new data will emerge and overturn conventional models.  Is this satellite data so challenging?  I think not.  But don’t listen to me:  simply look at the record.  It has been debated!!!
In this record, I really don’t think there are any “alternative” data.  Measurements, all measurements, all of them uncertain, are part of the record, along with an argument, contentious at times, that by and large addresses criticism one point at a time.  There are many debates that continue to rage WITHIN this community, in the context of the published science, in particular on the margins of what has been established and accepted.  As far as I have been able to tell, those “scientists” who have not been allowed to publish their criticism of establishment views are either touting data interpretations of data that has already been addressed in the literature.  In other words, they are not published because they have nothing to add.
What if there WERE data that contradicted the mainstream?  Should someone find data now that actually contradicts conventional wisdom and shows that we have nothing to fear from climate change, they’d win the Nobel for sure!  There is plenty of incentive to disprove conventional wisdom among scientists.   They are an ornery, skeptical bunch, in my experience.
I like this one:
After all, evolution is “just” a theory.  A theory supported by lots and lots of evidence.  And it isn’t contradicted by ANY evidence.  But we should remain open to evaluating any such evidence that is forthcoming, as hard as that might be.
SQ

On Jul 22, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:
Jerry,
Unfortunately -- scientists are just humans and subject to the human condition in all its manifestations including jealousy and envy, anger and clique-forming.  Scientists can be very parochial and closely guard a member of the "tribe" against any assault from without -- such as challenging the "statui quo".  This is especially true when money and/or "professional status" is involved.  Throw in a controversial topic in which people get deeply committed to one of a couple of interpretations of the same data -- and open warfare can nearly result.  Certainly, reviewers can band together and deny a "heretic" from being published, receive a major grant or even be granted tenure.
The famous Isaac Newton quote "If I have seen further than others it is because I stood upon the shoulders of giants" -- was not as self-deprecating as it sounds.  Newton was a bit of a giant for his time standing almost 2m tall  -- meanwhile his arch rival Robert Hook [Hooks law of springs] was much smaller  [and hence not a giant upon whose shoulders Newton was standing].
Ted
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:53 AM Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:

> They presented the difficulties in analyzing the data sets and the broad range of possible climate changes.Sound bites, 280-character Tweets, and social media zingers don't lend themselves to any level of nuance. 
I'd like to share this article to broaden the original topic's scope (eg, facts refuting conspiracy theorists and disinformation campaigns). 

It’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.

         - Jonathan Haidt, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/ 
We're all commenting and observing that there's fierce competition over who gets to define the facts and interpretations of these facts. I was surprised to see scientific research expressed in similar terms: "relegate your competitor scientists to obscurity...where the pleasure is not only owning all of the hotels, but also in wiping out a friend". I've worked in the tech world my whole career where business competition and technical cooperation go hand-in-hand. (Eg, open source software and open standards) Is this no longer the case in scientific research? 
Jerry Harris (the other other Jerry)
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 6:23 PM Jerome Slate <SlateMD at comcast.net> wrote:

Dear Group. 

First, let met say that “Climate Science” in the press has devolved into an oxymoron. This contrasts sharply with the Penn State course in climatology that Charlie Holbrow, Carl Lazarus, Mike Alexander and I took. In that class, the scientists, believers all in global warming, presented a balanced academic discussion of what we know and what we don’t. They presented the difficulties in analyzing the data sets and the broad range of possible climate changes. 

In the press, we seen the opposite in scientists and others—true believers cherry picking data without recognizing the many unknowns. Serious scientific investigation is not being a true believer in a given result and then trying to prove it.  Rather, the goal is to find a definitive advance of any sort and to relegate your competitor scientists to obscurity. Scientific investigation is much like the game Monopoly, where the pleasure is not only owning all of the hotels, but also in wiping out a friend. 

             Jerry Slate

     Commissioner

Ministry of Truth

 On 7/21/2022 2:46 PM, Jerry Harris wrote:

 Hi Stephen,  > Meanwhile, notice that the opposite does NOT happen.  In other words, nowhere in the “alternative” or “pseudoscience” world are the real academic debates on these supposedly “alternative facts” actually referenced.  It’s a one-sided argument where science engages it’s critics but it’s critics then ignore those legitimate responses to their attacks.  
  This is usually a sign the debater is approaching the topic with a pre-conceived conclusion and will discard contradictory facts, treating the data as a means to an end.  
  As for this particular dataset on Dr Roy's website, I downloaded his data file (it was not csv-formatted) and created a chart. The charts don't match at all. It's also clear it's an incomplete dataset. The numbers are "temperature anomalies", which are deltas from an average calculated across a range of the original temperature data (eg, years 1981-2001). The average of the anomaly data across the same range should equal zero. There was no such range in his data file, so he's missing data.  
  I don't know whether the data is legit or not, but someone who's this sloppy with their charts and data is working from a trust deficit.  
  Jerry  
  On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 1:34 PM Stephen Quatrano <stefanoq at gmail.com> wrote:

 Jerry,  
  I get what you are saying.  Theories that explain the evidence are absolutely a matter of debate in the scientific community.  And it’s certainly true about what should be DONE about climate change, which is not a scientific question at all.  But with respect to the evidence itself, especially in a case like this, I think there is still a LOT we can say in order to push back on a post-modern kind of view where everyone is entitled to their own facts as well as their own opinions.  Furthermore, in this case, I think there’s evidence that this data set in particular is being used in bad faith — abused in other words — to undermine public confidence in science.  
  This satellite data is not a set of “alternative facts” that are ignored by the scientific community.  It doesn’t even contradict warming that has been observed unless you cherry pick the data.  (Why are we looking at the last 18 years?)  On the contrary, the overall dataset confirms the fact that the planet is warming, first of all.  And second, this data set is PART of the empirical data we use to understand what is happening to our planet.  And finally, on its own, it does not falsify an overwhelming, global consensus on the fact of climate change and attribution models that can ONLY account for observed changes when we consider the effects of human activity. 
  All you need to do to verify these three claims is search the scientific record for the dataset.  Voila!  You find it!!  Someone more skilled than I am with familiarity and access to original scientific research can do it even better than I have, no doubt.  I’d love to see and learn more about this dataset! 
  This is pretty far from my own expertise but I have invested quite a bit of time into both the history and philosophy of science in order to understand “how we know what we know”.  I’ve learned to take a deep breath and ask some important questions before engaging in unproductive debate on science and pseudoscience.   
  For example, my first question is:  “What exactly is this data set?”  I try hard to actually be interested in the data and interested in learning.  Why not?  It’s cool. 
  And my second question is:  “If it is legit, and if it does contradict other data, is it actually being ignored by scientists (which is what is being implied by the controversy)?  Is it being hidden or covered up?  Or perhaps it’s actually being used in their models?”  
  Does anyone else notice that these questions are not asked by those who are sowing doubt?  And they surely don’t make explicit claims that scientists have ignored or tried to cover up the contradictory data.  Why not?  Because they can be investigated pretty easily.  And if you look, you’ll find out that ALL of the legitimate data is being used by the community, not just those “convenient” datapoints that support some kind of bogus theory.

  I used Google for literally 5 minutes and found these pretty interesting looking arguments that engage with the data, the actual data, NOT ALTERNATIVE FACTS, and explain that it IS being used and HOW it’s being used and WHY.  
  https://skepticalscience.com/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html  
  https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=466 
  “What-about-ism” is a plague on our open society and rational public discourse.  It’s a problem that all you need to do to cast doubt on hard won consensus after years of debate and vital institutions, is to throw data that seems to contradict conventional wisdom and ask questions like these:  “What about the 'Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures’ data set from satellites?” 
  Even I experience a kind of knee-jerk, visceral response to this question.  I feel myself asking, “Yeah!  What ABOUT that contradictory data?”  Dang! 
  You see, it’s just too easy to cast doubt and undermine confidence like this.  And it’s really, freakin hard to build trust. 
  Stepping back, I notice that the record of scientific literature DOES consider these measurements, dare I call them “facts."  There are no alternative facts.  The prevailing models MUST account for all observations, including these.  And sure enough, these very datasets are clearly referenced in the literature. 
  Meanwhile, notice that the opposite does NOT happen.  In other words, nowhere in the “alternative” or “pseudoscience” world are the real academic debates on these supposedly “alternative facts” actually referenced.  It’s a one-sided argument where science engages it’s critics but it’s critics then ignore those legitimate responses to their attacks.  They repeat themselves.  Or they move on.  They don’t actually debate the issue:  they just cast doubt on the entire endeavor. 
  I call this “bad faith” or pseudo-discourse.  It’s not, in fact, a conversation at all. 
  Unfortunately, this creates a lot of collateral damage as well.  It affects our confidence and public trust in EVERYTHING. 
  SQ  

 On Jul 21, 2022, at 12:15 PM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote: 
  Peter,  I disagree. The climate change debate shows us that alternative facts have been created and used to support pre-determined conclusions. The latest example recently shared on this list was that global warming is on "pause" and CO2 increase is not the cause of climate change. (https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/) 
  Even in situations where the facts are agreed upon by all parties, there can be plenty of alternative conclusions. Sometimes these are positive and progressive, eg, the scientific method where a new theory is proposed based on existing data. Sometimes there is incorrect or flawed reasoning (e.g., stupidity) that is used to reach a different conclusion. And sometimes, there are belief- or ideologically-driven conclusions where the data and reasoning chain only serves as means to an end.  
  This gets me back to conspiracy theorists. Dismissing them as either "stupid" or "fact-deprived" ignores the harm they can cause through disinformation amplification and brainwashing.  
  I know this is typical over-thinking of a simple cartoon, but this is why I feel the cartoon is timelessly funny, IMO.  
  Jerry 

  On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:21 AM <palbin24 at yahoo.com> wrote:

 Fortunately in science “alternate facts” do not exist.

 Peter 

On Jul 21, 2022, at 11:11 AM, carllazarus at comcast.net wrote:

Facts don’t matter to conspiracy theorists.

From: LCTG <lctg-bounces+carllazarus=comcast.net at lists.toku.us> On Behalf Of Jerry Harris
 Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 8:30 AM
 To: john rudy <jjrudy1 at comcast.net>
 Cc: Lex Computer Group <LCTG at lists.toku.us>
 Subject: Re: [Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science

If only conspiracy theories or disinformation campaigns could be so easily refuted with facts. 

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 10:58 AM john rudy <jjrudy1 at comcast.net> wrote:

  <image001.png> 

===============================================
 ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
 Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
 Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
 To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
 Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
 List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
 This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com.
 Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com

   ===============================================
 ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
 Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
 Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
 To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
 Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
 List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
 This message was sent to palbin24 at yahoo.com.
 Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/palbin24@yahoo.com 
 ===============================================
 ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
 Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
 Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
 To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
 Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
 List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
 This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com.
 Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com
  ===============================================
 ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
 Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
 Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
 To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
 Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
 List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
 This message was sent to stefanoq at gmail.com.
 Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com 

  ===============================================
::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
This message was sent to slatemd at comcast.net.
Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/slatemd@comcast.net 

===============================================
::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
This message was sent to tedpkphd at gmail.com.
Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/tedpkphd@gmail.com
===============================================
::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
This message was sent to stefanoq at gmail.com.
Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com

===============================================
::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
This message was sent to mna.ma at yahoo.com.
Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/mna.ma@yahoo.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220723/1993e8ee/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: evolution evidence nobel.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 84004 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220723/1993e8ee/attachment.jpeg>